We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
PPI help please :)
I have written to Clydesdale bank to ask if I had any ppi with them in the past. I have received a letter from them listing my accounts and against some of them it says "unable to determine" .
Any idea what I do to? 😊
Comments
-
Clydesdale Bank were fined some time ago by the FCA for essentially not looking hard enough when considering PPI claims, so you'd hope by now they'd have upped their game (I'm not suggesting they haven't looked hard enough here).
If it says "unable to determine" then that probably means the account is so old they don't have any records for it. This means they'll assume there was no PPI unless you can provide something which shows otherwise - for example some old paperwork which shows PPI coming off a credit card, or being added to a loan or whatever.
Do you have anything like that?0 -
If it says "unable to determine" then that probably means the account is so old they don't have any records for it. This means they'll assume there was no PPI unless you can provide something which shows otherwise - for example some old paperwork which shows PPI coming off a credit card, or being added to a loan or whatever.
Do you have anything like that?
Which is logical, they couldn't refund if they have no evidence a policy existed
OP can either go with what they were told or risk £10 on a DSAR and see if they dig out any old stuff from the archives
Incidentally Clydesdale were fined for hiding records / presenting false information to the FOS, not that they weren't "looking hard enough" - they WERE looking hard enough, what they did was alter printouts sending to customers to suggest they had no data and that was May 2012-June 2013. Extremely unlikely there would have continued doing it given how much they were fined
https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/clydesdale-bank-fined-%C2%A320678300-serious-failings-ppi-complaint-handlingSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
Thanks for your replies. Will have a look and see if there are any old paperwork that shows anything. ��0
-
Which is logical, they couldn't refund if they have no evidence a policy existed
OP can either go with what they were told or risk £10 on a DSAR and see if they dig out any old stuff from the archives
Incidentally Clydesdale were fined for hiding records / presenting false information to the FOS, not that they weren't "looking hard enough" - they WERE looking hard enough, what they did was alter printouts sending to customers to suggest they had no data and that was May 2012-June 2013. Extremely unlikely there would have continued doing it given how much they were fined
https://www.fca.org.uk/news/press-releases/clydesdale-bank-fined-%C2%A320678300-serious-failings-ppi-complaint-handling
Indeed, I've read the FCA notice. Misleading the FOS was one of the other things they were doing. What I was referring to was that, while investigating people's mis-selling claims, Clydesdale would not look for documents which went back x number of years, even though they might have existed:Clydesdale implemented an inappropriate policy which meant that its
complaint handlers would not search for any documents relating to PPI
complaints about loans and mortgages which had been repaid more than
seven years prior to the date of the complaint, on the basis that the
documents fell outside Clydesdale’s seven year document retention period.
This was despite the fact that, in a small percentage of cases, relevant
documents had not in fact been destroyed and were still readily available
on Clydesdale’s electronic systems.0 -
Indeed, I've read the FCA notice. Misleading the FOS was one of the other things they were doing. What I was referring to was that, while investigating people's mis-selling claims, Clydesdale would not look for documents which went back x number of years, even though they might have existed:
MSE saidComplaints handlers would not search for documents about loans, mortgages and credit cards which had been repaid more than seven years before the date of the complaint. However in a small number of cases, these documents had not been destroyed and were still available
More of a DPA issue in not destroying documents more than 6 years after the account was closed. More fool them for not following the proper policy and being caught out. Could easily have legitimately rejected complaints if they had correctly destroyed data!Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
I think it unfair to the OP to use his thread for discussion of Clydesdale's complaint mishandling five years ago. It's irrelevant to the current position and so off-topic.
If you guys want to continue discussing it, please start a separate thread.0 -
It's an explanation of why they might not have any documentation left (or whether they are lying about it) - quite possible after they realised they weren't destroying data but claiming they were they would have started (thus meaning no records left) or that they wrongly told the OP there was nothing left (hence why they were fined)
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0 -
I want to claim significant ppi and £ 1200 of useless insurance. Sadly HFC Bank no longer exist. Is that a dead issue then0
-
I want to claim significant ppi and £ 1200 of useless insurance. Sadly HFC Bank no longer exist. Is that a dead issue then
You don't claim anything, nor is the amount guaranteed (if it was £1200 worth of PPI payments and they agreed you were miss-sold you'd get interest as well).
You complain to the bank giving your reasons for miss-selling. HSBC deal with HFC
See below
http://www.hfcbank.co.uk/html/payment_insurance.htmlSam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 257K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards